Sheffield City Council (18 007 973)

Category : Planning > Planning applications

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 16 Jul 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Council properly investigated planning enforcement concerns on a development. However, it did not handle the complainant’s complaints about these matters properly, causing limited injustice. The Council agreed an apology to remedy this and a review of the Council’s complaints information.

The complaint

  1. Mrs X complained about the Council's response to her concerns about a development next to her property.
  2. Mrs X complained that the nearest house on a major development has been built too close to her property, which has caused her a loss of light and afternoon sun in her garden. She says the Council did not respond in a timely way to her concerns about this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
  2. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have spoken with Mrs X and considered information and photographs she has provided.
  2. I have considered the relevant planning records available on the Council’s planning website, and copies of its enforcement records relating to these complaints.
  3. I have considered the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), updated in late 2018, and the Council’s Planning Enforcement Policy.
  4. I have considered the Council’s Complaints policy.
  5. I have written to Mrs X and the Council with my draft decision and given them an opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance and local policies

  1. The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) says: “Effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control. Local planning authorities should consider publishing a local enforcement plan to manage enforcement proactively, in a way that is appropriate to their area. This should set out how they will monitor the implementation of planning permissions, investigate alleged cases of unauthorised development and take action where it is appropriate to do so.”
  2. The Council has an Enforcement Policy. This explains what steps it will take to investigate complaints raised about alleged breaches of planning control.
  3. The Council has a complaints procedure and policy. This sets out what the public can expect the Council to do when it receives a complaint.

Summary of events

  1. In 2017 the Council received a planning application for a major development of over 200 houses on land next to Mrs X’s property. The site formerly had houses on it which had been demolished in 2008.
  2. The Council approved the application with conditions. One of these required the developer to provide details of ground levels for all the new houses to the Council for approval, before they were built.
  3. The Council approved the ground level details for the houses next to Mrs X’s home in line with this condition.
  4. In June 2018 Mrs X contacted the Council as the building work started. She was very concerned about the height at which the new house was being built.
  5. The Council investigated her concerns and confirmed the building was in line with the approved ground levels.
  6. In August 2018 Mrs X made a further complaint to the Council. She said her complaint had not been responded to.
  7. Mrs X chased the Council for a response at the end of August and again at the end of September and raised a further concern about the distance between her boundary and the new building.
  8. The Council visited the site, took measurements and met Mrs X in October to explain what it was doing. It provided Mr X with its response to her August complaint in early November 2018.
  9. Mrs X remained dissatisfied, so the Council carried out a review at Stage 2 of its complaints process.
  10. The Council sent a detailed response to Mrs X in early December 2018. She remained dissatisfied and brought her concerns to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Enforcement actions

  1. Planning enforcement is a discretionary power. The Council must investigate an alleged breach of planning control but then may decide what, if any action is needed following proper consideration of any harm caused by the breach.
  2. The Council investigated Mrs X’s concerns about the ground levels of the new houses in July 2018. It explained how it carries out enforcement investigations and that these can take time.
  3. The Council checked the development against the plans showing the floor levels, which had been approved under the relevant condition on the original planning permission. It found the building was in accordance with the approved levels. Therefore, there was no action to be taken on the matter.
  4. The Council explained this to Mrs X shortly after she sent in her further complaint in August 2018. It spoke to Mrs X and confirmed the findings in an email to her.
  5. Mrs X complained about the distance the new house was from her boundary in August 2018. The Council carried out a site visit in October, two months after she raised her concerns.
  6. The Council measured the floor levels again and the boundary distance and confirmed, again, the development was in accordance with the approved plans. It explained this to Mrs X in a letter at the end of October 2018.
  7. There was some delay in assessing the boundary distances however I do not consider that amounted to fault. Enforcement processes are not subject to statutory timescales but should be carried out without undue delay.
  8. The Council visited the site, and spoke to Mrs X, took measurements and checked these against the approved levels and distances. Having found the development was in accordance with the approved plans, there was no enforcement action it needed to take.
  9. I do not find fault in the way the Council investigated Mrs X’s concerns.

Complaint handling

  1. Mrs X made her first formal complaint through the Council’s online corporate complaints form in June 2018. The Council acknowledged this and explained that these matters would be considered as enforcement ones, rather than through its corporate complaints process. The Council explained the process could take up to six months if it found a breach of planning control, but it would aim to provide a detailed response within 25 working days.
  2. The Council met with Mrs X in July and investigated her concerns by getting information from the contractor.
  3. The Council responded to Mrs X’s June complaint on 17 August 2018. This was a week after Mrs X made a further complaint through the Council’s main complaints system. This was passed to the enforcement team on 15 August but was not referred to in the Council’s response to Mrs X on 17 August.
  4. I do not find fault in the way the Council handled Mrs X’s initial June 2018 complaint. It passed it through to Enforcement and told Mrs X how it would consider and respond to her, and when. There was some delay in that response, but I do not consider that amounted to fault. The Council sought information from the contractor which was not immediately forthcoming.
  5. When Mrs X made her further complaint in August, she said she had not had a response to her June complaint. The Council did not at this point tie together her original and new complaints, which it could and should have done, if only to confirm a response was imminent and explain why there had been some delay. This was fault.
  6. The Council did not provide Mrs X with an acknowledgement of her August complaint. She therefore reasonably chased the Council for a response at the end of August, in line with its corporate complaint process. At this point Mrs X raised a new concern about the distance between the new building and her boundary.
  7. Mrs X had to chase again at the end of September when she had heard nothing further from the Council. She said that she spent a long time on the ‘phone as the Council’s complaints team could not identify her complaint, even though she says she provided the reference number.
  8. The Council did not explain it would investigate her new concerns under enforcement processes, as it had done for her original complaint. There is also nothing on the Council’s website that explains this is what may happen to planning enforcement complaints.
  9. The Council again visited the site in early October and visited Mrs X at that time to explain what it was doing. It said it would respond to Mrs X within two weeks.
  10. Mrs X chased again at that point; the Council sent her its response the following day, which explained the development was being built in accordance with the approved plans, both in terms of ground levels and distance from her boundary.
  11. Mrs X remained dissatisfied and the Council then moved her complaint into the corporate complaints process, at Stage 2. It wrote to her on 6 December 2018 with its final response, which provided a very clear explanation of the enforcement actions and decisions. This response was a few days late on the Council’s complaint response timeframes.
  12. I consider the Council was at fault in the way it handled Mrs X complaints from August 2018. Its website was not clear that a planning enforcement complaint might not be considered through the corporate complaints process. The Council’s planning enforcement webpages explain there is a form on which to raise enforcement concerns, but there is no link to that from the corporate complaints page. The Council also did not make this difference clear to Mrs X in its acknowledgements to her.
  13. In accepting the complaints through the Council’s corporate web portal, the Council gave Mrs X expectations that it would respond in line with that process, rather than the enforcement process. The enforcement webpages do not provide a clear explanation of what responses a complainant may expect from that process, which may legitimately be more limited and may take longer than the corporate process.
  14. The Council was also unable to find Mrs X’s complaint easily when she provided a reference number in a call to the complaints team in September 2018. Its system should be able to identify a complaint readily and which department is responsible for responding. Mrs X was caused unnecessary frustration in her call to the Council when this happened.
  15. I therefore find fault in the way the Council handled Mrs X’s complaints. This created undue delay in responding to her which caused her unnecessary trouble in chasing responses and related frustration.

Agreed action

  1. I recommend the Council should apologise to Mrs X for the faults in handling her complaints and for the confusion and frustration this caused her.
  2. The Council should issue this apology within one month of my final decision.
  3. I recommend the Council should review its public-facing information about its corporate complaints process and the enforcement reporting process and provide clear public information on the difference between the two; consider links across from the corporate webpage to the enforcement webpage and provide clarity on what complainants can expect in terms of responses on enforcement matters.
  4. The Council should complete that review and provide evidence of its actions to the Ombudsman within three months of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Council acted without fault in its investigation of the planning concerns raised by Mrs X.
  2. The Council was at fault in the way it handled Mrs X’s formal complaints on these matters, and this caused her limited injustice
  3. The Council has agreed to my recommendations therefore I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings